About Me

Author of "Common Genius" -- a brief history of how common people built the prosperity of free nations, and how the intelligentsias usurp control and bring on decline -- go to: www.thecommongenius.com
Just published the sequel--"Wasted Genius," How IQ and SAT tests are Hurting Our Children and Crippling America. An analysis of how our schools and colleges are adding the the intellectual morons who make up the New Ruling Class. See www.thewastedgenius.com

Sunday, September 29, 2013

As a contrarian by nature, I have to wonder if
it makes sense for our government to spend trillions of dollars to
"stimulate" the economy. In short, do the ex-Goldman Sachs execs and
their banker buddies who run the Federal Reserve System and the U. S. Treasury
Department really know what they are doing? Another way of stating this is to
ask "Is Economics a true science?"

We have seen in recent years (actually
centuries) the coming and going of different abstract economic theories and the
failed nature of most "modeling" attempts. And the profession's
efforts during the last 100 years to "fine-tune" the economy have
certainly failed--the cyclical booms and busts have increased in both intensity
and frequency. During the past 40 years, while top economists debated the money
supply, inflation, fiscal and monetary policy, a series of monstrous financial
debacles recurred over and over again. The savings lost by Americans during the
recent mortgage melt-down was a monumental failure on the part of the nation's
economists.

Admittedly, the melt-down was primarily caused
by a misguided political policy to grant loans to borrowers who were not credit
worthy on properties with inflated values. But why did economists support those
policies? Many worked for financial organizations that profited from the large
volume of dubious transactions so were influenced by a bias of self-interest.
But many did not benefit directly from the bubble. They just went along with
the crowd--the politically correct path. If this analysis is correct, economics
is either a fraud or its experts are intellectually dishonest.

Thomas Sowell has pointed out that there are the
"hard" physical sciences like math, physics, and chemistry; and there
are the soft sciences like political science, sociology, and anthropology. Sowell's
distinction indicates that when you are dealing with inanimate objects, like
atoms, numbers, and planetary motion, there are certain "laws" that
govern activity. But, when dealing with human beings, there is little certainty
about anything. So where do we place "economics?" The basis of all
economics is what the individual citizens arefrom time to time doing, so it has to be a "soft" science!
Nothing is more erratic than human activity!

If we admit to this inadequacy, we can see that
postulating universal axioms for economic activity is, if not futile, at least
subject to wide ranges of predictability. Compared to astronomy, an economic
model would be akin to knowing that the earth revolves around the sun somewhere
between one and ten times a year, depending on a variety of unknown forces that
vary every few months!

Nevertheless, the noted Nobel Prize winning
economist Paul Krugman believes that he can manipulate economic activity based
on his knowledge of human behavior. In his Introduction to the Folio Society's recent
publication of Isaac Asimov's "The Foundation Trilogy," Krugman
recalls how as a young man the series inspired him to study economics:"I grew up wanting to be Hari Seldon,
using my understanding of the mathematics of human behavior to save
civilization." A true ivory-tower academic, Krugman thus reveals his
intellectual arrogance, a preference for abstract theory over scientifically
observable results, and an almost Messianic wish to save the world! Please God,
keep us safe from such noble intentions!

Krugman may actually have sufficient hubris to
believe that he has "The Power" to control the economy, and to
understand the "mathematics of human behavior." But does any sane
person believe him? Isn't he just a useful tool for the bankers that run the
Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve? They are the major financiers of
Wall Street. They are playing for keeps and always seem to come out a few
billion dollars ahead of everyone else. Aren't they just using all the economic
mumbo-jumbo of the Krugman's to line their own pockets? Are all the economists
in tacit league with the bankers just to keep their jobs? Do the politicians
usually support Keynesian policies merely to justify their position and
increase their regulatory power?If you
answered "yes" for all go to the head of the class!

If there is a mathematical formula to human
behavior it is best evidenced by the recurring efforts of leaders to administer
economic controls, jiggle monetary policy, and apply fiscal/tax incentives to
manage their nation's economies. This mathematically predictable hubris on the
part of leadership elites has proven to be, unfortunately, a reason to
disbelieve all such claims! Robert L. Schuettinger and Eamon F. Butler's book,
"Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls," documents how such
efforts have consistently failed since Hammurabi attempted it about 4,000 years
ago! Of course, such predictable behavior, repeating policies that have always
failed, and hoping for better results, is a form of insanity. Fortunately, such
predictably bad behavior is limited primarily to abstract-thinking
intellectuals who are more fascinated with elegant theory than actual results.

It is this elevation of theory over practice
that renders economics a "soft" science. In engineering, a machine
must function efficiently to be used, regardless of the beauty of its design.
To the extent that economic theories have been tested in practice they have
never proven useful. No attempt was ever made to measure their effectiveness,
nor can such measurement be accurately made.Without accurate measurement no pursuit can be called scientific. The economic health of a society is the sum
total of its inhabitants' activity and, humans being as unpredictable as they
are, most governmental efforts to direct their energy serve more as a
suppressant than a stimulus. In fact, economics, although a soft science, has
proven to give us mostly hard financial landings.

Sunday, September 15, 2013

The
current fiasco over Syria has highlighted the confusion and inconsistency of
America's foreign policy. Secretary of
State John Kerry" attempts to explain each new twist and reversal in the
failed policy of his President has made a laughing stock of this administration.
Ironically, the general policy during
the last six years has been a continuation of the George W. Bush policies that
Obama campaigned against and promised to reverse. But today we are still
enmeshed in the Middle East conflicts. The number of Americans killed in
Afghanistan under Obama now exceed those killed under the Bush presidency. Camp
Gitmo remains open, and the Muslim extremists are gradually taking over one
more country after another. The subversion of relatively stable regimes in
Libya and Egypt was supported by American force only to increase the influence
of our enemies. The president's recent threat to bomb Syrian government bases
would have also helped the extremists take over one more nation. That such
folly was avoided only by the intervention of Russia and Iran indicates the
extent to which American leadership has fallen.

American
liberals and most Democrats opposed the Iraq war because, among other things,
they argued that nation building was not the responsibility of America.
However, after WWII we did make decent and viable democracies out of Germany,
Japan, and South Korea. Our resident generals were not limited by today's
politically correct "rules of engagement," and working with industrious
and educated populations, those three countries responded positively.However, we have discovered that the Muslim
nations in the Middle East are a different kettle of fish--they are torn by
religious fanaticism, divided by the mutual hatred of ancient tribal grievances,
and segregated into diverse religious sects that are devoted to wiping out all
other groups. And the populations are primarily uneducated and unemployed,
living off the flow of oil money that can only be produced by the expertise and
initiative of foreign companies and workers. If the Iraq and Afghanistan
conflicts did nothing, they at least showed that we cannot repeat the Japanese
miracle in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the diplomats in Foggy Bottom, and
the President, have not learned this fact.Why, when it is now so obvious, have they failed to see this point?

We
are suffering from an excess of internationalism. This dates back to the defeat
of isolationism during the last century when the original founding principle of
America to avoid foreign entanglements was dominant.As with most "isms," there seems to
be no happy medium. The cure for today's excessive foreign interventions is to
seek such a happy medium, but the thousands of government employees in the
State Department, and many of our political leaders, have nothing else to do
and believe it necessary "to lead" by action and talk to justify
their positions. The result is that
America is always sticking its nose into the affairs of other nations. A recent
egregious case was Obama's lecturing Russia's leader, Putin, about gay rights.
So much for knowing how to win friends and influence people!

It
is useful to recognize how the world has changed when devising foreign policy.
The Cold War is over, world commerce is thriving and connecting more and more
nations and their people, and we need not worry so much about so-called
"strategic interests" in every corner of the globe. We do not have to
"control" the Middle East to get oil because there are plenty of
other sources and the nations there will want to sell it on the world market
anyway. And, if China or Russia want to try their hand at controlling the
Middle East, let them--after all that region is known as "the graveyard of
civilizations." Finally, if we were to disengage, there would be less
reason for foreign people to hate us.

It
is also useful to recognize that America's multi-national corporations have
been much more successful in "foreign affairs" than our government
has been. You don't read about it in the mainstream media, but Kellogg, Intel,
Exxon, Microsoft, and hundreds of others have elaborate investments and
manufacturing operations in virtually every country on earth, including some of the most unstable nations, and they
are doing well. They build factories, employ local residents, follow their
laws, pay taxes, and thrive. Why is it just our government that is always in
trouble everywhere? Two reasons: 1.) Our government has no legitimate interest
or reason to bother other nations, and 2.) Governments tend to do most things
poorly, as overwhelminly proven by our recent efforts in the Middle East.

While
it has been a noble idea for America to be a beacon of freedom, and to stand up
for human rights, the best way to do that is by setting the example--not by
preaching to others. Our objective should be to restore our own house to
optimum financial order, eliminate corruption, fix our schools, and maintain
our military might. The constant urge to intervene everywhere on earth has us
overextended and earned the ill-will of many nations. The best medicine for our
foreign policy would be to stop all foreign aid payments, return all our troops
to America, completely close every endangered embassy, and let the State
Department rolls be cut in half through attrition--then they could only do half
the mischief they currently inflict on us.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Nature Vs.
Nurture--PartIII--Culture Trumps Both Genes and the Environment

In Parts I and II we have noted how the huge advances made by
human societies over the last 5,000 years were made possible, unfortunately in
only a few regions of the world, by the gradual accumulation of knowledge and
the development of enabling institutions, beliefs, and attitudes. Thus, our
extraordinary "evolution" has been cultural, and not biological. There
has been no significant change in the genetic ability of the world's human
population over that same period. The vast improvements for the
"winning" nations' people, in both affluence and freedom, have
resulted from the way those societies have been organized and their children reared.

History tells us that a safe environment combined with the provision
of healthy nutrition and stimulating experiences will make useful and mature
adults. Consequently, in America, vast sums have been spent on schools and
colleges in the hope of providing the best "environment" for our
childrens' development from childhood, through adolescence, and into adulthood.
Curiously, before 1900, children grew up with very little of those advantages,
and yet the nation grew from a wilderness outpost to a world superpower. And,
we must note, much of the Industrial Revolution was fueled in England by
generations of youth with virtually no education who were apprenticed out at
puberty to work in a trade. So we must ask two questions: Is it really
necessary to make the physical environment so attractive? And what accounts for
the undeniable success of England and America when the physical environment was
harsh?

Robert Epstein, writing in "The Case Against Adolescence,"
has argued that we are hurting ourselves by trying too hard to provide
extraordinary security and stimulation to our youth, because it has led to a harmful
"deferment" of growing up and is creating a new generation of
immature adults. Maura Pennington, writing in Forbes magazine has described
the related problem about how many of today's young adults are "lost,"
plagued by an internal emptiness and lack of purpose. "In a
life with goals and meaning, anything can be achieved. Without it, a
person is lost. . . The lost ones are smart. They pay attention
to what goes on in the world. They read the news along with the
lists of 37 GIFs. Yet what can they do? They have minimal
discretionary income and their free time is spent unwinding from occupations
that force them to look at backlit words for eight hours or deal with whining
strangers. They are fully adults and can’t boast of anything their
parents had at this age besides better means of communication, which many are
horrible at maintaining."

Pennington
writes this about the half of the country's youth who are overindulged. She doesn't
even address the problems of the other half, many illegitimate, isolated in
urban and rural ghettos, with little hope of ever having meaningful roles in
the mainstream society outside gangs, drug dealers, and personal dependency. This
dual problem illustrates the fact that the "environment," as it
affects our youth, is made up of two parts: the physical and mental. It seems
that we have overdone the physical part and neglected the mental and spiritual basis
of both personal and national strength. In Parts I and II the point was made that
throughout history progress has been made possible by encouraging the
creativity of individuals whose positive attitudes and motivations drove them
to make use of the enabling institutions they enjoyed. Unless the culture and
the family injects a purposeful mind-set in its youth, the provision of a beneficial
physical environment is wasted. Surprisingly, it is the collective
"attitude" of a populace that makes or breaks a nation! Race,
genetics, and luxurious surroundings are irrelevant.

So what have been the cultural factors that accelerated national
advances and led to the personal growth and maturity of its citizens? Clearly,
the technical innovations that built prosperity were devised by hard-working
and ingenious individuals--governments did not invent the cotton gin, the
combustion engine, the electrical generator, and antibiotics, nor did they
design the bridges, airplanes, and magnificent buildings that adorn the land. And
we know that those individuals who deserve credit were no smarter or more
capable than the people populating the areas in the world that stagnated. What
caused the different outcomes? The common denominator for progress has often been
attributed to the personal characteristics passed down from prior generations
endowed with the Greek-Judeo-Christian heritage. That heritage celebrated the
importance of each individual human life and encouraged personal
accomplishment, honor, thrift, and family. The uniquely Christian idea of free
will taught those people that they were responsible for their behavior, and
endowed with the capability to accomplish great things. After the Protestant
Reformation, Kings, priests, and aristocracies were resisted, since everyone's
prime allegiance was owed directly to God, and secular authorities became secondary.
In most Western nations the coexistence of Science and Faith was affirmed. The
resulting freedom and personal striving unleashed the wonders of modern technological
progress, and it occurred very rarely anywhere else on earth!

There is a
lesson about the rise and fall of nations here: America was founded by
self-reliant and restless people who were sick and tired of waiting for Old
Europe's aristocracies to grant them equal opportunity and economic liberty.
These like minded individuals arrived in the New World and founded a land of
freedom that remained for a long time unburdened by aristocrats or
intellectuals. The only thing they brought with them was the English common law
and a respect for private property. And, it is noteworthy that the subsequent
success of these common immigrants was unparalleled in history. It was their attitude and beliefs that set
them apart. Each new generation was imbued with the values and attitude of the
pioneers.

But, with the
huge success we have enjoyed, our populace has grown a hundred-fold, and not
everyone is as fearlessly independent as those who crossed the oceans to carve
out free lives for their families from a wilderness. It doesn't help that our educational elites
teach the children that all cultures are equally good, and go on to denigrate
many of the unique features that made America great. And it looks like the
tipping point for America has been reached--approximately one-half the voters
now want a permissive mommy state, especially if she is indulgent and
"compassionate" with her hand-outs, regardless of the dollar costs or
its impact on the independence of the people. More harmful is the splitting of
the populace into two halves--the spoiled and advantaged versus the despairing
and dependent--a division greatly valued by the two major political parties
that feast off the grumblings and emotions of both sides. The result is that
neither the haves nor the have-nots possess the essential attitude and beliefs
that made our grandparents and our country such winners. As Paula Cole laments:

Where is my John
WayneWhere is
my prairie songWhere is
my happy endingWhere have
all the cowboys gone

In summary, our
genetics and physical environment have not changed; indeed the physical
environment has improved. But our beliefs and attitudes have softened,
motivation has declined, and the former moral compass is being lost. The self
reliance and contribution of a growing portion of the citizenry is falling. The
"best and brightest" are increasingly applying themselves to careers that
feed off the bureaucracy, the growing regulatory morass, and the corrupt
alliance between Wall Street and Washington.Moral relativism and multiculturalism have blurred the difference
between constructive behavior and dishonorable behavior. These trends, seen so clearly at the national
level, are simply reflections of the
populace at large.

It should be
obvious that if all America's children were raised to be responsible, honest
adults, and raised their families to repeat the process, as they have for
generations past, the nation would keep getting stronger and more prosperous. Given
security, and even a half-reasonable physical environment, both our children
and our nation will succeed if they maintain the positive and constructive
beliefs and attitudes of our forbears. Without such a mental and spiritual
foundation, no nation, or individual, regardless of their endowment, can long
endure.

But, to look for
a bright side to it all-- It was a great run--for almost 400 years! Not too bad
for just another of the recurring cycles in the rise and fall of successful
societies. The shame is that it is all just so darn predictable! It doesn't
have to end!